I trust Newt more than either politico or WSJ. Newt has a lot more to loose by being wrong than Politico or WSJ, so I think Newt is being truthful. Besides I read both accounts and he never even said what they said he said.

The Wall Street Journal reports quotes from Gingrich which say similar things, with a different slant. Gingrich e-mailing to say the slant is wrong is not surprising, but let’s see him explain his quotes.

Here are all the quotes from the Wall Street Journal Washington Wire story. Are you claiming that they MADE UP these quotes?

Incumbent presidents have enormous advantages. And I think what Republicans ought to do is whats right for America. They ought to do it calmly and pleasantly and happily,

[the senate bill is] an absurd dereliction of duty.

Obama is so inept as a president, and the Congress is so dysfunctional as an institution, that we are lurching from failure to failure to failure,

a Senate majority leader who is totally disruptive and a president who is basically campaigner-in-chief, who has no interest in solving the problems of the American people.

Its very hard for the legislative branch to outperform the president in communications, he said. He has all the advantages of being one person. He has all the advantages of the White House as a backdrop, and my experience is presidents routinely win.

Or are the "good quotes" real, and the "bad quotes" made up?

It is rare that you find a journalist actually manufacturing quotes. They are generally punished for that sort of thing. This isn't some fly-by-night paper.

But I guess we should take the candidate's e-mail word that the story is false, because why? If there is a video of the press conference, it should be easy to post it to prove that these words were not spoken.

BTW, a more interesting argument would be that the quotes are accurate, but don’t mean what they sound like.

Is his “Republicans ought to do what’s right for America. They ought to do it calmly and pleasantly and happily” a bad quote? Or is it a quote that actually means they should fight for their 1-year extension but be nice about it?

The problem is that 2nd thing doesn’t make sense. If they are going to FIGHT against Obama and Reid, they can’t do it “calmly and pleasantly and happily,”. That wording only makes sense if Gingrich is telling them to give in.

Mr. Gingrich made it clear he favored a one-year extension of the two-percentage point payroll tax cut, which expires Jan. 1, not the two-month extension that passed the Senate with bipartisan support. He called the Senate bill an absurd dereliction of duty.

Obama is so inept as a president, and the Congress is so dysfunctional as an institution, that we are lurching from failure to failure to failure, Mr. Gingrich said.

It’s about making up headlines. National Review just did the same thing. They don’t report on what Newt actually said, they report their conclusion reached from what he said. Gingrich never said “Throw in the towel” or “Take the Senate Bill” National Review is approaching drive by media status.

Except it doesn’t sound like he is supporting Obama. It just sounds like he is surrendering to the political expediency.

Nothing Gingrich said suggests he thinks Obama is right, or the Senate is right. His message, if you believe the quotes, is that we can’t win the battle, so the best thing for America would be to surrender this time.

It’s not necessarily a bad message, from a political perspective. It is what I would expect a smart political mind to come up with. It’s hardly the plain-spoken conservatism we have been fighting for. Conservatives are tired of the games, we are told.

The response here is actually very cleverly designed to avoid the real facts and issues. Note that here at FR, the pro-Gingrich forces didn’t post the article and discuss it first, instead they post the e-mail Rush exchange information, to discredit the whole idea of their BEING a story, without dealing with the quotes at all.

If the quotes are false, there will be a recorded proof. I’d love to see the full transcript. But the message in the WSJ is exactly what I would predict from Gingrich given his history (he did sit on a couch with Nancy, he did AGREE with Al Gore at a “debate”).

Yes, certainly. It is only a bit annoying that I posted the Wall Street Journal article, but a few have attacked politico for their version; I hope nobody thinks I actually posted a Politico article. :-)

The WSJ was specifically named as one of the news outlets that Biff Naylor, former chairman of the NRA, told the facts of Herman Cain and Sharon Bialek to. Rather than print his story, the WSJ elected to continue repeating lies about Cain.

If the WSJ would withhold a story and print a lie, what makes you think they won’t make up quotes?

When I first read that Newt was for the payroll tax cuts, I thought this doesn’t fit.

The stupid GOP has been handed a gold plated battle cry against Obama and the dems. But what do many of them do, they side with the enemy.

It is quite simple, the payroll tax cuts is an effort to defund SS and Medicare. Once accomplished it will force seniors into a means tested welfare program, where no matter how much you have paid into SS, you will get the same benefit as a low life who paid in almost nothing.

Once Medicare is broke, seniors will be made to go into Obamacare. (AKA Medicaid on steroids)

35
posted on 12/21/2011 12:14:57 PM PST
by Sea Parrot
(You know you might be facing your DOOM , if all you get is a click, Instead of a BOOM !)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.